The debate, as far as I can find does not envision restoring (or fixing) an expired exploartion licence in the way they were obsessed about fixing an expired mining lease.
But it did acknowledge that s.111A "applied" to an exploration licence.
So IMHO, they never intended s.111A to restore an expired EL. But they intended an application for an EL would or could be subjected to the test that the "application" was in the public interest.
As I say, it seems to me that Bowler bowled out Cazaly using a spin ball. In tennis, it would be like defeating Cazaly with a backhander and the question will be, for the Judicial Review to decide if the minista's ball can get over the net. So to speak.
Or if the Minista, whose roll at the J.R. is somewhat reversed, is out on a LBW.
That's about as far as I can possibly comment.
CAZ Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
