Ann: NSW Government decides not to provide evidence, page-15

The NSW Government has not only failed to follow due process in cancelling its own approval for MEL to drill Rosella, but it's failed to give due notice on its changed view on the approval and give Metgasco an opportunity to remedy which means that its in breach of the Petroleum Act.

The Crown can’t identify which part of its own community consultation guidelines Metgasco was in breach of.  

Now the Crown has decided not to co-operate with Court processes to assist in the determination of the facts of the matter which puts the NSW Government in breach of its own Model Litigant policy.

There is a deep body of law on the obligations placed on Government to act as a model litigant.  I’m no lawyer but there have already been cases before the supreme court where Government has elected not to provide evidence to the Court.  A dim view of this tactic seems to be taken by the Court as the model litigant policy obligates the Crown to act honestly and to genuinely attempt to get to the facts of the matter.

This latest development indicates that the decision making process taken by the Crown can’t stand up to public scrutiny.  The Minister has some serious questions to answer.  Did he truthfully receive advice from the OCSG that the drilling approval should be withdrawn?  If he was so advised why is this advice not available for the Court? Did the Minister personally intervene in this matter?  If so why?  Why did the Minister link the withdrawal of the drilling approval to allegations of corrupt conduct on the part of Metgasco which were promptly dismissed by ICAC?

Can any business in NSW rely on the decision making by the Government or will future approvals be withdrawn on a whim by Government with no explanation?