I have read your monologue.
There is a serious problem of logic in your argument:
1) Anthony Albanese said he was "opposed" to PEP-11 while in opposition.
You have made the gigantic leap to: "...the ALP to make cancelling PEP11 their policy..." (
Post #:77464567). That isn't even close to what he said. Also being opposed to PEP-11 could change after reviewing the NOPTA report, therefore, I don't see a problem with it. You are trying to suggest they were opposed pre-election, then opposed post election because of a pre-election caucus meeting? there is no evidence for that (if there is any evidence for that post-election, post it, all I see is a carefully considered decision with no biased comments from the Federal Joint Authority to point to).
You also wrote: "Their actions in creating a policy to refuse the PEP11 applications BEFORE being entrusted to participate in an administrative process" (
Post #:77464567). That is another wild assumption. The best you are allowed to come up with according to the evidence you have put forward is that they were opposed pre-election. After the election you have no evidence to suggest the caucus "policy" was to refuse PEP-11, in fact, wasn't Albanese baited into providing a sentiment towards PEP-11 after the election and Albanese didn't bite? Why would a journalist ask that if their position was known post election? (because their position wasn't known post election (source:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house-canberra-act-3).). There is no evidence to suggest their "policy" was to refuse the PEP-11 applications at all... You are making wild assumptions. Let me make it more clear for you: being "opposed" to something pre-election, is not equivalent to "if we get into power we must reject the PEP-11 application".
You have absolutely no idea what terms and conditions of the outcome of the caucus meeting was. For example, did they say they opposed it indefinitely? did they say they oppose it until they have any new information? did they say they 'only' oppose it whilst in opposition? etc etc... You have no idea what the details of the "policy" (I doubt it was a policy) was, except to say that they opposed it during opposition.
2) "Husic's decision has been reverse engineered to suit a predetermined outcome, rather than a decision based on the merit of the applications." (source:
Post #:77464567) Where is your evidence for this? You cannot tell me that the "policy" you speak of had terms and conditions that allowed it to persist any longer than whilst they remained in opposition (before assuming Government).
3) Here is a journalist, asking the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese what his current view on PEP-11 was, and his answer directly contradicted your argument. "...will the Commonwealth Government be taking a position in Asset Energy's case about that decision?" (source:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house-canberra-act-3).
He wouldn't need to ask the Prime Minister what his position was if everyone believed a caucus meeting pre-election persisted in perpetuity.
-----
More discussion should be had about whether or not the status of PEP-11 will change to "cancelled" in 2months.
I would love to see your updated "windows".... lol.... might I suggest you look at this post to re-evaluate your "windows" lol..
Post #:77341871
If either Government choose to contest the case instead of concede, that will make the time lines even longer. Yet another unbelievable 365days+ until something of significance...
Let's reconvene in 2026.
(20min delay)