H i@Hoodlum,

I agree, implicit is the need to establish what is a "reasonable" timeframe.

You also mentioned that "The JA has the NOPTA recommendation, so no need for any delay." But this part I'm not so sure of, considering we now know through an FOI complaint that Madeline King and her office never received a copy of NOPTA's Recommendation (before she recused herself), so perhaps Courtney and her office haven't received a copy of it either? I guess if this is the case, then questions should be asked how any decision could possibly be made in a reasonable time-frame when the decision-makers themselves haven't even read the Recommendation yet!

I would also presume that Madeleine King's initial statement regarding 18 months "not fair on everyone", will be used to argue the "reasonable" point.

MK's announcement below might also be another handy one to use because it shows that Labor was fully cognisant of the need for more gas to ease shortages and support the east coast market, so much so they felt it necessary to issue more offshore titles specifically to address this need. If they can issue new titles in a reasonable time-frame, then they should be able to process existing ones to address the same purpose in the same manner.

In addition the announcement specifically references a time-frame for shortfalls as early as 2027. It's feasible for PEP-11 to meet the 2027 time-frame, but only if the JA's act in a "reasonable" time-frame to progress it.

But, not being a lawyer myself, I don't know how useful this would be.

The Hon Madeleine King MP

Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia

Share

Originally posted by VstarE:↑

Important to take into account that is was a court directive for the JA to make a determnation on the PEP-11 application - according to law.

The court will ask - what havent you (The JA) done as required?

Implicit is the need for a determinbation to be made is a reasonable timeframe. The JA has the NOPTA recommendation, so no need for any delay.