What concerns me is the decision was based on the concerned parties and Plibersek said it was a “confidential” nature and she was not willing to disclose, but yet was happy to disclose itwas “indigenous” community concerns ( so revealed just enough).
So my questions are as follows? Why did previous reviews that were rubber stamped and passed scrutiny both at state and fed level ( within her own party) now not pass the “confidential concerns test”. L et’s be open book about this, being the veracity of the investment and the work put in for the PFS etc that needed to be put out there in order for approval to take place- years in the making . Second - who advised her the tailing dam was simple to move and therefore straight forward for reapproval ( either she is totally dimwitted or knew that it was not a straightforward case- therefore MIsleading the public) . Third and this is a bit sinister - but let’s say she was dining with her working class battlers in Balmain and somebody (say a share market shorter- perhaps someone who was a “confidential and concerned “ party actively and subversively through fantasy song line spiel (which you cannot question) campaigned to kill the deal- would said concerned party benefit from such interest (stock shorter).
Plib -to show you are fair dinkum- show us how this decision was really derived and who these 17 people are… let’s check under the hood… Many lives are affected by this very dubious decision. It smells like barramundi in a bin in January.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)