Another group that has started its own initiative to stop PEP11.
https://www.marineconservation.org.au/actions/pep11-petroleum-exploration-south-coast-oil-and-gas/
Is the information they post factually correct? "The PEP11 licence, if renewed, would allow seismic blasting and drilling for gas within 5.5km of the NSW shoreline, all the way from Manly, through the Central Coast to Newcastle, threatening migration routes of humpback whales."
My other question is and apologies if it has already been raised and addressed: When Albanese mentioned that the application would be handled 'in accordance with the law,' does this suggest that new laws could be introduced and applied to reject the application 'legally and lawfully'? If this were to return to court, how might a judge view the situation, especially if it becomes apparent that new laws were introduced primarily with the intention of rejecting the application (also given its history)?
Last but not least, how does Skypunter's 'freedom of information disclosure' finding fit into the wider scheme of things in light of the recent events with the PM? ( _> Supporting a strong resources sector: Pep11; see screenshot). Yes, MK is the decision maker, but it would be naive to assume she is not working closely with the PM and who knows whom behind the scenes.
Just trying to get my head around the reason(s) for the delay and when the final decision is likely to come that is supposed to be so clear that it can't be overturned (not even in court). Thanks everyone for correcting / adding / clarifying.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
